Three hundred years after their publication, they remain beloved worldwide, but how did Jonathan Swift’s dark satire become children’s literature?
“People of Lilliput, hoist your flag,” sang the inhabitants of the imaginary city in the legendary children’s radio series “Here in Lilliput,” created on the Third Program of Greek Radio during the period when Manos Hadjidakis was its director. A series that, behind the humor and imagination, concealed sharp political commentary, appealing equally to young and old alike.
Long before Lilipoupoli, however, there was Jonathan Swift’s Lilliput. When the author published *Gulliver’s Travels* in 1726, he did not intend to entertain children. He wanted to expose human vanity, political hypocrisy, corruption, and the violence hidden behind civilization.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Three hundred years later, the BBC examines how one of the sharpest satirical works in English literature came to be treated as an innocent fantasy story.
A book that wasn’t written to entertain us
Swift had stated that his goal was to provoke people, not to entertain them. And his book fully lived up to that intention.
Beyond the Lilliputians and the giants, Gulliver encounters scientists conducting absurd and torturous experiments on animals, as well as a society of talking horses, the Houyhnhnms, who calmly discuss the possibility of exterminating the Yahoos, a humanoid species.
By the end of his travels, Gulliver himself has developed such a deep aversion to humans that he prefers to spend his time with a horse rather than with his family.
“Swift intended *Gulliver’s Travels* to be a series of satirical attacks on humanity, not an adventure,” explains Abigail Williams, a professor of English literature at King’s College London, to the BBC.
The paradox is that the author, in attempting to parody the popular travel narratives of his time, ultimately created one of the most famous adventure stories.
The first edits began 300 years ago
The alteration of the work is not a modern phenomenon. It began almost simultaneously with its publication.
Its first publisher, Benjamin Mott, intervened in the text, toning down some of the most provocative political references and adding defensive comments in support of Queen Anne.
At the same time, the book’s great commercial success led to the publication of cheaper and abridged editions, which were unexpectedly well-received by children.
The decisive change came in 1776, when publisher Francis Newbery introduced an even more abridged version. This version completely omitted Laputa, with its scientists attempting to extract sunlight from cucumbers, and the land of the Houyhnhnms, where Swift voiced his darkest critique of human nature.
What remained were mainly Gulliver’s adventures among the tiny Lilliputians and the giant inhabitants of Brobdingnag.
Political satire gradually began to give way to spectacle.
The Victorians could not tolerate the real Gulliver
In the 19th century, the book’s transformation took on a moral dimension as well. Victorians found it difficult to accept both the sexual references and the crude humor surrounding human bodily functions, as well as Swift’s deep pessimism toward humanity
William Thackeray, author of *Vanity Fair*, described the work as vulgar in both language and thought, while the critic Edmund Gosse linked Swift’s misanthropy to his mental and physical condition.
“The Victorians considered it anti-Christian. They detested its scatological and sexual elements, as well as its persistent, gloomy misanthropy,” historian Esther Grant explains to the BBC.
According to her, this aversion played a decisive role in the removal of the book’s most objectionable aspects. In place of political and philosophical satire, what remained was a pure, imaginative story, suitable for children.
The most troubling element was the fourth voyage. There, Swift no longer limited himself to ridiculing politicians or social institutions. He challenged the very idea of human superiority.
As scholar Daniel Cook points out, readers could easily accept a satire on the incompetence of politicians. Equating humans, however, with the repulsive Yahoos was much harder to tolerate.
The Satire That Disappeared Along with the Cuts
The removal of the darker chapters did not simply mean that the book became less frightening. It also changed the way readers perceived its message.
In the original work, Swift railed against authority, religious intolerance, colonialism, and human arrogance.
His own political career partly explains this anger. After the collapse of the government with which he was associated in 1714, the author felt he had lost his political influence. At the same time, his relationship with Ireland, where he was born, was contradictory: he often treated it with contempt, yet he defended its autonomy against English rule.
This political dimension is also reflected in Laputa, the flying island capable of crushing the cities of those who challenge its authority.
For Grant, Swift’s harshness is not necessarily proof that he hated people. On the contrary, it may indicate his desire to force them to acknowledge what they preferred to ignore.
The author, she explains, presents humanity in its most repulsive form because he wants to shake up his readers and rouse them from their complacency, while horrific things are happening all around them.
A children’s fairy tale that its creator would not recognize
Three hundred years later, *Gulliver’s Travels* ranks among the most adapted works in world literature.
From children’s editions to Disney movies and the 2010 adaptation starring Jack Black, Gulliver continues to travel through fantastical worlds. However, in most of these adaptations, much of the criticism that made the original so provocative is absent.
George Orwell, on the other hand, saw something far more disturbing in the work. He described Swift as an “anarchist Tory” and recognized in the society of the Houyhnhnms an early depiction of modern totalitarianism.
Rudyard Kipling had summed up the paradox of Swift’s posthumous reputation, noting that the author sought to draw up an indictment against all of humanity, but ultimately left behind a children’s book.
This is the greatest paradox of *Gulliver’s Travels*. A work written to expose the most unpleasant aspects of human nature became universally beloved precisely when those very aspects were removed.
Abigail Williams believes that Swift would have been disappointed by this turn of events. However, she also recognizes a final irony: since much of his writing is based on misunderstandings, the author might ultimately have found it amusing that his most famous work continues to be misinterpreted.
Source: in.gr
